Evolution or Creation? You Decide :)

Richard M Kliman rkliman at runet.edu
Mon Apr 14 08:43:09 EST 1997

In article <01bc4662$fe880e40$294192cf at mycomputer>,
Joe Potter <joe.potter at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Richard M Kliman <rkliman at runet.edu> wrote in article
><5ilh1k$c5r at ruacad.runet.edu>...
>> In article <01bc43ae$4b8c7d00$a84992cf at mycomputer>,
>> Joe Potter <joe.potter at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >	And more to the point, why sex (mixing your genes 50/50) if the whole
>> >point of evolution revolves around a struggle to leave as many copies of
>> >you genes as possible. Heck, you do not leave even one!!!
>> Who said there's a point to evolution?
>> You seem to be asking how sex can provide for one leaving more copies of 
>> one's genes (actually, a disproportionate amount of one's genes) than 
>> clonal reproduction.  Passing on many copies of one's genes does not 
>> guarantee that one will disproportionately influence future gene pools.  
>> The carriers of one's genes must also be disproportionately successful 
>> offspring producers.  Again, I any decent college-level evolution text 
>> explains why sexual reproduction is expected to be favored in certain 
>> contexts.

>	Rich, you seem to have missed some part of the thread. I pointed out
>(earlier) that Dr. Eldrege called sex a paradox from the ultra-Darwinist
>(his words, not mine) point of view.
>	He is saying that sex makes no sense if Dawkins position is correct that
>evolution is simply the struggle to leave more copies of one's own genes.
>This is from his 1995 book, last chapter.

I'm confused.  I thought the point of this thread was to discuss possible 
explanantions for the persistence of sexual reproduction in the face a 
presumed cost to the female.  If the point of this thread is to argue the 
merits of Eldredge's book or Dawkins' "ultra-Darwinist" viewpoint, then 
fine.  If Eldredge argues that sex makes no sense in the context of 
Dawkins' argument, then either (1) Eldrege is wrong - sex is compatible 
with Dawkins - or (2) Dawkins is wrong.  Either way, this has little to do 
with the origin and maintenance of sex - i.e., the actual study of 
evolution.  Neither Eldredge nor Dawkins - regardless of their collective 
contributions to evolutionary biology - should serve as a focus for 
discussions on the evolution of sex.

So what *is* the point to this thread?

Rich Kliman
Dept. of Biology
Radford University

More information about the Mol-evol mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net